Theoretical Study of the Formation of Mercury (Hg<sup>2+</sup>) Complexes in Solution Using an Explicit Solvation Shell in Implicit Solvent Calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structures and harmonic vibrational frequencies of water clusters (H2O)n, n = 1-10, have been computed using the M06-L/, B3LYP/, and CAM-BLYP/cc-pVTZ levels of theories. On the basis of the literature and our results, we use three hexamer structures of the water molecules to calculate an estimated "experimental" average solvation free energy of [Hg(H2O)6](2+). Aqueous formation constants (log K) for Hg(2+) complexes, [Hg(L)m(H2O)n](2-mq), L = Cl(-), HO(-), HS(-), and S(2-), are calculated using a combination of experimental (solvation free energies of ligands and Hg(2+)) and calculated gas- and liquid-phase free energies. A combined approach has been used that involves attaching n explicit water molecules to the Hg(2+) complexes such that the first coordination sphere is complete, then surrounding the resulting (Hg(2+)-Lm)-(OH2)n cluster by a dielectric continuum, and using suitable thermodynamic cycles. This procedure significantly improves the agreement between the calculated log K values and experiment. Thus, for some neutral and anionic Hg(II) complexes, particularly Hg(II) metal ion surrounded with homo- or heteroatoms, augmenting implicit solvent calculations with sufficient explicit water molecules to complete the first coordination sphere is required-and adequate-to account for strong short-range hydrogen bonding interactions between the anion and the solvent. Calculated values for formation constants of Hg(2+) complexes with S(2-) and SH(-) are proposed. Experimental measurements of these log K values have been lacking or controversial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".